In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

Care to enlighten us?

Not even gonna put up with the "why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" bullshiat. Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel. Some positions are flat out wrong. I'm sure your logical and philosophical consistency helps you sleep at night, but if you cant take issues on a case by case basis than either you are lazy or willfully perpetuating hatred.

Didn't mean to direct that towards you, Jesterling. I'm out anyway. Need to keep to my word and not give it a platform.

Nice part of these recent state actions is that it makes it more and more likely that SCOTUS will do something sweeping with the DoMA and Prop 8 cases. They hate being seen as holding back an inevitability, particularly one that will be a major note in the history books. Even Scalia is concerned about his legacy.This makes a 9-0 (though really 5-4) DoMA decision more likely, with the liberals in favor of equal rights and the conservatives in favor of states' rights.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat. Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

I have frequently observed that individuals who are unable to present any rational justification for their position will, rather than admit their inability, instead attempt to justify their refusal to present any rational argument by claiming that no reasoned argument will be accepted by their opponents. In addition to same-sex marriage opponents, such a rhetorical tactic has been employed by creationists and by opponents of concealed weapons permit systems.

Rather than actually serve as a convincing response, however, such an attempt to justify refusing to provide an answer is intellectually dishonest.

There's just no talking to you about this stuff, you're not listening because you're too heavily invested in your own opinion.

I am willing to listen to and consider a rational argument for continuing to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I have requested, repeatedly, presentation of such an argument. Thus far, however, no such argument has been presented.

jvl:Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat. Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

/ I will choose Free Will!

What's important here is that you've found a way to feel morally superior. Kudos.

stoli n coke:What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)

Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage." So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?

Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."=============================================

Considering this is what most christians believe, I'd rather party in hell.

Theaetetus:Nice part of these recent state actions is that it makes it more and more likely that SCOTUS will do something sweeping with the DoMA and Prop 8 cases. They hate being seen as holding back an inevitability, particularly one that will be a major note in the history books. Even Scalia is concerned about his legacy.This makes a 9-0 (though really 5-4) DoMA decision more likely, with the liberals in favor of equal rights and the conservatives in favor of states' rights.

No, it's got to be at least 8-1 or 7-2; I can't imagine Scalia and his pet Thomas ever ever voting in favor of letting those icky homosexuals out in the open to Do It no matter what the states say is okay. He may want to preserve his legacy, but part of that legacy is never giving a shemale an even break.

jvl:stoli n coke: What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)

Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage." So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?

What's amazing to me is that you managed to read his post and somehow manage to get it completely wrong.

jvl:Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat. Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

jvl:stoli n coke: What opinions? Opponents have hidden behind the Bible to justify trying to tell a certain group of the population that they are inferior and shouldn't get the option to do the same things they can. (Usually, quoting the same section of the Old Testament that says eating shrimp and shaving your facial hair are hell-worthy offenses.)

Ah, now we're going with the "I hate Christians and support Gay Marriage therefore Christians are to blame for opposition to Gay Marriage." So basically your going with the "Only a True Scotsman" fallacy?

In your world? None. But that's okay: inability to sympathize with the positions of others is common in homo sapiens. Normal side effects include demonizing your opponents and being extremely self-justified.

Care to enlighten us?

Not even gonna put up with the "why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" bullshiat. Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel. Some positions are flat out wrong. I'm sure your logical and philosophical consistency helps you sleep at night, but if you cant take issues on a case by case basis than either you are lazy or willfully perpetuating hatred.

Didn't mean to direct that towards you, Jesterling. I'm out anyway. Need to keep to my word and not give it a platform.

Ya I figured, no worries. I've yet to hear a good reason why gay marriage shouldn't be permitted in the US - it's always some nonsense about gayness being icky, naughty or frowned upon in Bronze Age holy books.

jake3988:Providing some of the most heated rhetoric of the debate, Hall said, "People say, 'Don't you want to be on the right side of history?' The truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."=============================================

Considering this is what most christians believe, I'd rather party in hell.

Well now that can finally force all straight MN Christians to gay marry we can continue with our Ebil Liebrul AgendaTM to gain rights for Pet owners to marry their pet. TODAY GAY MARRIAGE, TOMORROW DOG-HUMAN MARRIAGE.

Granny_Panties:real_headhoncho: Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?

Most if not all the money poured into this was fighting it. If you Republicans cared so much, maybe you could have just let the inevitable happen and go create some jobs instead. Nope, had to pour millions into sticking your nose in other people's business and legislating the bedroom.

Hey now, technically they created a bunch of marketing/advertizing jobs trying to spread their hate speech

So, if I understand the Michele Bachmann's line of reasoning correctly, the first thing that's going to happen is that millions of straight marriages are going to be destroyed because now it's possible for dudes to marry other dudes, which is what they really wanted all along. Straight marriage was the only thing keeping them from getting down on one knee and proposing to the pool boy, you see. Next, as I understand it, God will begin to send plagues and other natural disasters to express his displeasure, as well a few large scale incidents of violence. Finally, since homosexuality destroys every culture that embraces it, Minnesota will fall to a massive invasion of gay barbarians from the north, just like ancient Rome, if the Huns had been gay Canadian lumberjacks.

We'll make the homosexual marriage illegal by voter proposition. They'll be biatching because their legal marriage licenses will be revoked but it's the senates fault because they have no authority to change the defination of marriage.

Dimensio:I am willing to listen to and consider a rational argument for continuing to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I have requested, repeatedly, presentation of such an argument. Thus far, however, no such argument has been presented.

You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again. Like me, you disagree with them and think the justification are just a product of traditionally-held tribal beliefs about homosexuality.

The only difference between you and me is the I'm content to call their reasoning wrong, whereas you insist that the argument is irrational.

Way back when, when Chumboobler was a young batman villain, he had a chick that he loved. She loved a guy named Kirk and he was sooooo totally gay. I did not care that Kirk was gay except for the fact that he held the affections of the girl I thought I loved. I told said girl that Kirk was gay and she told me that he just had "style".

Long story short. I like Kirk. I always will but some ladies will not believe the three dollar bill you put in front of them for any reason. Ideals they can be bad.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann threatened to leave Minnesota today if the state goes ahead with its plans to legalize gay marriage.

In an interview with a local television station, the conservative firebrand said she believes God will destroy Minneapolis once the legislation is enacted, and wants to be far away when the reckoning happens."The Bible is very clear on this issue," she told KSTP-TV this morning, "Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it.

"Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God - and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next.

"I have a friend from Eden Prairie who's already packed everything she owns into her car and is driving out to Montana as we speak. These are very scary times. I don't want my family to be the last ones out."

How is there not a petition for her to leave the state?

Hell, I'd chip in for the gas money. We need a fundraiser. Gas money and rent for a moving van to Montana for Michele. (And if she weasels out, we'll donate the money to some gay charity.)

aerojockey:mpirooz: "I stand here, quite honestly, more uncertain of my future in this place than I ever have, but when I walk out of this chamber today ... I will be on the side of liberty," Petersen said.

Petersen is a Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

Because all Republicans mindless robots who are only programmed to obey directives from their party leaders and have no will of their own, amirite?

No, because that's just stupid. But it happens so rarely that it is quite surprising and relieving. Is that okay?

Is it really necessary for me to write "I am for Gay Marriage" in every post in order to prevent people from jumping to entirely unwarranted conclusions? Is it really impossible for me to advocate for a calmer approach so that we can convince others of our rightness without everyone branding me a Rush-listening Christian bigot who eats shellfish?

To Wish Impossible Things:Congresswoman Michele Bachmann threatened to leave Minnesota today if the state goes ahead with its plans to legalize gay marriage.

In an interview with a local television station, the conservative firebrand said she believes God will destroy Minneapolis once the legislation is enacted, and wants to be far away when the reckoning happens."The Bible is very clear on this issue," she told KSTP-TV this morning, "Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it.

"Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God - and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next.

"I have a friend from Eden Prairie who's already packed everything she owns into her car and is driving out to Montana as we speak. These are very scary times. I don't want my family to be the last ones out."

How is there not a petition for her to leave the state?

Hell, I'd chip in for the gas money. We need a fundraiser. Gas money and rent for a moving van to Montana for Michele. (And if she weasels out, we'll donate the money to some gay charity.)

jvl:You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.

You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.

jvl:Dimensio: I am willing to listen to and consider a rational argument for continuing to prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I have requested, repeatedly, presentation of such an argument. Thus far, however, no such argument has been presented.

You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again. Like me, you disagree with them and think the justification are just a product of traditionally-held tribal beliefs about homosexuality.

The only difference between you and me is the I'm content to call their reasoning wrong, whereas you insist that the argument is irrational.

What rational arguements do you think the opponants of gay marriage have put forward, that do not depend on cherrypicking portions of a religious text or a misunderstanding of the cultural history of marriage in IndoEuropian cultures?

Mister Peejay:real_headhoncho: Now that it is okay for members of the same sex to marry each other, how about fixing your economy, or sending a manned mission to Mars, or doing something that is actually important?

This.

You hurtin' anybody? You hurtin' yourself? No? Then who the fark cares.

"Men and Nations will always do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other options"

Dimensio:jvl: You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.

You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.

I fail to see how the existence of a non-rational argument against gay marriage demonstrates that you have not heard a rational one.

jvl:Bane of Broone: Go back to listening to Rush if that's how you feel.

I see you have the "demonize people who disagree with you" part of being human down pat. Good job! But you probably should have avoided the whole "jump to conclusion" part where you accuse me of not being a supporter of Gay Marriage.

/ I will choose Free Will!

Ah... the old "I haven't taken a position, so everything you say is wrong" troll. Its my favorite!

jvl:Dimensio: jvl: You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.

You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.

I fail to see how the existence of a non-rational argument against gay marriage demonstrates that you have not heard a rational one.

I presented examples of what I have observed. You have asserted that I have also heard or seen a rational argument opposing legal recognition of same-sex marriage, but you have not provided any demonstration of such.

jvl:Dimensio: jvl: You have heard perfectly rational justifications time and time again.

You are mistaken. I have not. Typically, my solicitations for such argumentations are met with no response at all. Occasionally, I have been presented with entirely irrelevant data sets; one individual referenced a study of sexually transmitted diseases amongst homosexual men in the United Kingdom while claiming the study to relate to the consequences of legal same-sex marriage which obviously was impossible as same-sex marriage is still not legal in the United Kingdom. Another individual claimed that same-sex marriage will harm children, but when pressed for justification openly admitted that he could not support his claim with evidence. Irrelevant data sets and admittedly unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute rational argumentation.

I fail to see how the existence of a non-rational argument against gay marriage demonstrates that you have not heard a rational one.

Have you seen a rational arguement? I havent, and am interested in seeing one.

FunkOut:xria: With all the crap that Bachmann actually says and does, imputing homosexuality onto her husband seems fairly lame and juvenile. In fact by bringing down the discussion to potentially homophobic ad hominem it seems like it is designed to protect her from more meaningful attacks on her actual politics and record.

I believe it's because he behaves in a manner seen as somewhat effeminate. Plus his wife seems to be the boss while he's the spouse trailing after her. Glenn Beck is crying frequently in public, many see that as girly. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is not girly. Perhaps even a robot. People often get the idea a man is gay if he's openly emotional or kind of theatrical. This is a bit silly because they forget macho hairy bear men exist.

As an aside, it's interesting how cultures can be so different. In ancient Greece, a man was expected to cry, at least for certain reasons, or else he wasn't a man. I think Odysseus cried like 40 times in the Illiad.

cameroncrazy1984:Noam Chimpsky: senates fault because they have no authority to change the defination of marriage.

A legislative body has no authority to change a law?

That's new.

Can you expound upon that, please?

He might be going on the (laughable but understandable) claim that marriage is a religious term meaning one man and one woman... Ignoring all other historical definitions, and that the US is polytheistic in population.

My reply is, my church(sic) allows any consenting adult to join together with any other consenting adult - consenting meaning they are capable of understanding what it is that they are doing.